Why is technology staying relevant, or useful, longer? I was

Everyone's focusing on phones, mobile tech and cloud shit because it's the future.

>>47729597
moore's law is ending soon, and will be replaced with non-silicon solutions

>>47729667
Anon i'm going to start a company an make my own law,

I'll call it anon's law and It will state that for every doubling of transitors the chip will be twice as large.

I'll make chips the size of planets anon just to keep it going, you wait and see.

>>47729698
>Implying Earth isn't already a giant supercomputer

>>47729667
this is what i've been thinking too. Being a collgeg student working on a computer engineering degree, it is of particular interest.

>>47729698
tell me when I can fly my X-Wing through the trenches of your Moon sized CPU, I can't wait.

File: yep.jpg (453KB, 2560x1024px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 2560x1024px

>>47729718

Oddly enough anon I'm watching the 1981 bbc hitchikers guide right now.

>>47729597
computers became so fast that it didn't really matter except for a handful of applications

>>47729727
In about 200 years if you make your own x-wing.

Unless you smoke cigs anon.

File: 1422931312560.gif (1MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x480px

>>47729736
>tfw my entire life i've read ford's last name as perfect

>>47729767
In the book/old show it's stated he confused the primary species on the planet.

He's named after a car, the ford prefect, true story.

Anyway the '81 show is better than any of the movies it ends just as abruptly though; such is a hoopy frood's life.

>>47729597
>>47729723
because moore's law is slowing down to the point where its no longer valid? just an assertion.

File: enlight.jpg (29KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 499x374px

Moore's law describes transistors, not computing power. Even then, it is to computing what the last home game of the Redskins is to presidential elections.

also
>>47729597
>I was going to watch something on my PS3
PS3: introduced Q4 2006
>in 2015 I'm watching a TV show in HD
"HD ready" certification introduced Q1 2005
"HD ready 1080p" certification introduced Q3 2007
>In 1997 nothing like that would be possible
No shit?

>To put it simply: A device made in 2006 is more valuable in 2015 than a device made in 1997 would be in 2006. Why is this?

w.r.t displays, it's because the pc industry decided to use television panels to save costs, which is why there are still people buying 27" 1920x1080 monitors today as if it's still 2005. 4K computer displays (purpose: displaying lots of data, viewing distance ~3ft) are only starting to become affordable now because there's a push for 4K televisions (purpose: watching movies/tv with motion blur @24fps w/ beer goggles on, viewing distance 6-10ft).

w.r.t everything else it's because a vintage 2007 Core2 system can still handle everything casuals want to do. Sources of blame:
>TV/Movies still in 1080p which can be decoded in software by any year 2007 cpu
>Crap speeds / crap data caps hampering anything innovative that touches the internet (gl/hf streaming 4K over your 1.5mbps DSL)
>Console-itus in vidya
>Intel focusing on making mobile chips as good as desktop chips, instead of making desktop chips better
>Everyone in tech unironically pushing for "muh cloud", not realizing ownership is what distinguished the U.S. and the Soviet Union

But more than anything computers are just maturing. Cars were exciting 100 years ago, but was all about minor refinements from like 1950 until a few years ago when Tesla/Toyota/Nissan started making EVs/hybrids that weren't jokes. Maybe computer hardware outside of mobile will be interesting again with optical cpus/quantum computers.

Until then, keep working on that million-dollar idea app.

>>47730095
Modern combustion cars are incredibly advanced compared to 1950's cars, but your point does remain. A car from 1955 wills easily get on the highway and cruise with everyone else, but it certainly won't be as safe, powerful, or efficient, and will be missing many modern features and luxuries.

Are you saying that computers are reaching the point where they age more like cars and less like perishable food?

People used to say (and some still do) things like "computers are obsolete once you buy it", but that really isn't true like it used to be.

>>47730182
>Are you saying that computers are reaching the point where they age more like cars and less like perishable food?

Yeah, exactly. I think it would take something of a game-changer (say, optical CPUs with orders of magnitude more FLOPS) to get people to junk their current PCs en masse. Ditto for gasoline cars; if there's an EV revolution and every road has a third rail to power the cars, then the gas-station infrastructure will disappear quickly, obsoleting 1950s and 2000s passenger cars simultaneously.

I was talking to my Dad a few days ago - he's an engineer in his 60s - and he was saying

>When I was in my late teens, we started to hear about these folks called the 'jet set'; rich folks who would live in New York and Los Angeles and fly between them in just a few hours. And with the space program, we thought that it would be a couple decades until we'd see aircraft traveling at mach 10, traveling in parabolic paths taking people 90,000 feet above the earth on their direct flight from Philadelphia to Tokyo. It didn't really work out that way..."

The message I took away was that new technologies start out with innovation at a white-hot pace and then see steady incremental refinements for a much longer period afterwards. My dad didn't know it at the time, but his generation was born right near the end of one of those fast-paced periods for cars and airplanes.

I'll create the next OS for the future. It will have the NT, Unix, and Linux kernel combined in one. I will call it ImpOS

>why aren't computers becoming obsolete anymore??

Why are you complaining?
It feels great knowing that your 8 year old trash hardware hasn't gone obsolete yet.